Heresy, Rob Bell, Love Wins, Universalism, and the Christian Church

The problem in the "Rob Bell is now a heretic (although we already called him one when Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith was released)" is the confusion over the issues.  There are two significant issues at play, but people are dealing with them as if they are one.

The first issue is whether Bell a universalist.  A universalist is a person who believes that all people are saved in the end.  In the Christian perspective, this can take the approach that the blood of Jesus is for all humanity, whether they accept it or not.  Bell clearly answers, "No."  He is not a universalist.

But here is what Bell appears to be teaching.

He is a person that will accept a universalist as a brother or sister in Christ.

So the second issue is whether a universalist can be right with God.  Can a person be off on this issue and still have a relationship with Jesus?  In the interview, Bell was clear.  Our choices in this life are extremely relevant when we die, but he claims there is room in the Christian tradition for universalists.  He is not a universalist but will not condemn those who are.

For some reason, people can't separate the first issue from the second.  If Bell is going to be condemned for anything, it would be for accepting universalists as brothers and sisters in Jesus.  Maybe the issues shouldn't be separated because they might be equal "heresies."  Let's look at it.

It is similar to the baptism issue in Church of Christ/Christian Church circles.  For some it is an issue of division.  For most, it is not.  I fall into the it is not an issue of division camp.  I accept people as brothers and sisters in Jesus if they show fruit yet have not been baptized.  This does not stop me from teaching believer's baptism and its importance to all people who claim to be followers of Jesus.  Bell seems to be taking a similar approach with universalism. 

The pickle Bell finds himself in is that the anti-Bellers want him to defend being a universalist when he is isn't one. Due to this unfair situation, his answers appear weak because he is not defending what they have already concluded that he believes, universalism.  What he defended through the interview was that people can be universalists and still be Christians. Again, I will have to wait for my copy of the book that is scheduled to arrive today.  I am just going off of the interviews and publisher's hype. But I bet Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived won't even touch on Universalism. That subject was what the neo-reformed started attacking Bell on and Bashir went with it, but I wouldn't be surprised if the book doesn't even go there.

At the core, Bell is fighting for a principle that we, as Christian Church/Church of Christers, hold dear although we have a historical tendency to ignore. There is only a minimal set of essentials. It's not just our tradition.  The phrase "In essentials, unity.  In opinions, liberty.  In all things, love" goes back throughout church history and is not exclusive to our movement, but for a systematic theologian, that idea can be frustrating.  For them, all parts of a system of theology are important.  A systematic theologian develops a grand, comprehensive belief system that reaches the point where all teachings must be adhered to on all points in order for it to make sense.  It is like a house of cards.  You cannot just take one card out and have the house; it all crumbles because they were all constructed together depending on one another.  That is the way doctrine works in systematic theology.  It all builds together and the more irrelevant teachings must be adhered to because a few relevant teachings along with many more irrelevant teachings have been built on top of them.  Biblical theology takes a different approach.  It just takes the Bible at face value and refuses to construct a house of cards.  If one thought needs to be removed after further study, it is willingly removed because we don't have a whole system built using that belief.  Each belief must stand on its own in Scripture. 

The real Bell/Love Wins/Universalism debate should be on whether rejecting universalism is essential? Universalism goes against a few Scriptures. But I think most of us have changed views that we have held because we have been corrected by Scripture. I'm sure it will happen again some day for you and me. If we have to have perfect theology to be saved, then all of us are screwed.  Where is grace in that view?  Bell is not asking if universalism is right; he's asking whether it is an essential.  I think that is a good question.

I accept people as brothers and sisters who clearly go against some Scriptures I hold dear.  One of our core convictions at Riverside Christian Church is, "We believe in a minimal set of essentials in order to foster unity and freedom in Jesus."  There are a few issues there is absolutely no budging on.  Those are the essentials.  But the rest can be disagreed on for the sake of unity.  This is a thought that we have to always keep in check because we have this tendency to broaden the important issues until we have developed a scatterbrained systematic theology where everything is important.  From our beliefs at Riverside, we have two that stand against universalism.  "Forgiveness of sins and the promise of a meaningful and eternal life are available as a free gift of grace to those who believe in Jesus as Savior and Lord" (John 3:16).  "Jesus Christ is the one and only Son of God, who showed us how to live life to the fullest, died for our sins, and arose from the dead" (1 Corinthians 15: 1-8; John 3:16; John 10:10).  Those are essentials that we won't budge on.  But that does not mean that one cannot be a universalist and be saved.  A universalist, despite believing otherwise, can only be saved through surrendering their heart to Jesus.  Many universalists have done that, but they can do that and still be wrong on universalism.

It would be teaching false teaching to teach that everyone would go to heaven.  But that is not what Bell is teaching.  He appears to be teaching that people who believe everyone goes to heaven can be accepted as a brother or sister if they are in a relationship with Jesus.   

Churches have a tendency to make too many issues essential and that continues to divide us.  Bell seems to be fighting that.  To that, I say, "Keep up the good fight."   

(For further study on universalism, verses universalists use are Isaiah 45:15-25, Jonah 2, Matthew 12:40, Acts 3:19-26, Romans 5:12-21, 8:18-22, 10:8-18, 14:11, Ephesians 4:8-10, Philippian 2:10-11, I Peter 3:19, 4:6.  Verses against universalism are Isaiah 55:6-7, Matthew 11:28-30, Luke 18:18-30, 19:1-10, John 3:16-18, 6:37, 7:37, Acts 2:37-39, 3:19, 5:31, 17:30, Romans 2:4, 10:9-10, 2 Corinthians 5:19-20, 7:10, Ephesians 2:8-9, Hebrews 7:25, James 2:17, Revelation 3:19)

For the post that led up to this one: Rob Bell Dodged Only One Question.

Rob Bell Dodged Only One Question (and it was irrelevant to the discussion)

Martin Bashir interviewed Rob Bell as Rob was doing promotional interviews for his book Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived.

As you can see from the title of the Youtube clip, "Martin Bashir Makes Rob Bell Squirm", Rob Bell's critics thought Bashir hit a homerun.  Then I go read Justin Taylor's (one of the initial attackers of Rob Bell on this book) blog and see Taylor's readers all piling on.  The one comment that got me questioning the commenters was the statement that Bell dodged questions.  That isn't what I remembered of the interview, so I went and re-watched it.  You can watch the interview yourself, but I made a list of Bashir's questions and Bell's direct answer to those questions.  This is not a complete transcript, just one dealing with Bashir's questions and Bell's immediate answers.  Bell only dodged one question outside of the initial trap on the Japanese earthquake and tsunami.  

Bashir:  “Are you a universalist who believes that everyone can go to heaven regardless of how they respond to Christ on earth?

Bell:  “In regards to the question ‘are you a universalist’, I would say first and foremost, ‘No.’”  He even goes on to describe the accurate definition of universalists after that.  

Bashir:  “Is it irrelevant and is it immaterial about how one responds to Christ in this life in terms of determining one’s eternal destiny?”

Bell: “I think it is extremely important.”

Bashir: “Is it irrelevant as to how you respond to Christ in your life now to determine your eternal destiny?”

Bell: “It is terribly relevant.  It is terribly important.”  Then he goes on to explain.

Bashir: “Is it irrelevant and immaterial about how you respond to Christ now to determine to your eternal destiny?  Is that relevant or irrelevant?  Does it have a bearing or have no bearing?”

Bell: “I think it has tremendous bearing.”  Then he went on to have another explanation.

After four times being asked the same question Bell continued to give the same answer, but Bashir refuses to let him have that answer.  The critics say that Bell is a universalist, but his answering the questions as if he is not.  What was Bashir to do?

Bell is really is in a pickle here because the people who claim he is a universalist refuse to hear his real answer.  They want to hear him defend being a universalist.  But he can't because he isn't one. 

The interview goes on.

Bashir: “One critique of your book says this, 'There are dozens of problems with Love Wins. The history is inaccurate and the use of Scripture is indefensible.'  It’s true, isn’t it?"

Bell replied, “No, it’s not true.”  What was Bashir expecting there?  “Yes, you’re right.”  What a ridiculous, cornering question.

Bashir:  "Why do you choose, for example, to accept and promote the works of the early writer Origen and not, for example, Arius who took a view of Jesus' deity as him being not God.  Why do you select one and not the other?"  

Bell:  "Because first and foremost, I am a pastor.  I deal with real people in a real world asking and wrestling with these issues of faith."  A dodge.  But irrelevant to the argument coming from the Bell haters. 

Bashir: “According to this critic, 'It’s unbiblical and historically unreliable.'  That’s true.  Isn’t it?”

Bell: “No.”  He tried to continue but Bashir interrupted his answer.

Bashir: “Here comes Rob Bell.  He’s made a Christian Gospel for you.  And it’s perfectly palatable, much easier to swallow.  That’s what you’ve done.  Isn’t it?”

Bell: “No, I haven’t.  There is an entire chapter in the book on hell.  Throughout the book, over and over again, our choices matter.”  Then he goes on to explain. 

Bashir then thought he had Bell by asking: “How much of this book is you working out your own childhood experience of being brought up in a fairly cramped evangelical family and really finding that difficult as you became an adult?  How much of this is actually that?"

Bell: “I would totally own up to that in a heartbeat.” And he goes on to explain.  

Maybe people have problems with Bell going on and explaining his answers, but he only dodged one irrelevant question.